COMMUNICATION 


TO  THE 


ON  THE 


HARBOR. 

BY 

MILO  W.  LOCKE, 


BALTIMORE,  MARCH  27,  1875. 


COMMUNICATION. 


To  the  Joint  Standing  Committe  on  the  Harbor. 

Gentlemen — The  most  unwarranted  attack  which  has  been 
made  by  a member  o‘f  your  Committee  upon  the  Plan  for  ac- 
complishing a thorough  purification  of  the  Harbor  of  Balti- 
more which  I have  had  the  honor  of  presenting  to  you,  will, 
I hope,  be  deemed  a sufficient  apology  lor  my  thus  intruding 
upon  you,  for  I deem  it  due  both  to  your  Committee  and  my- 
self that  I should  correct  some  of  the  most  important  errors 
into  which  Mr.  Heuisler  appears  to  have  been  led. 

He  commences  his  argument  by  stating  that  the  Plan,  ee  so 
far  as  the  Committee  know,  is  merely  an  engineering  concep- 
tion, having  no  where  had  the  crucial  test  of  practice.  It  is 
proposed  to  launch  it  upon  us  at  a cost  of  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  dollars,  without  any  other  professional  assurance  of  its  success 
than  his  individual  confidence  and  convictions.  The  Committee 
lay  no  claim  to  engineering  skill.  P 

The  sweeping  assertions  contained  in  this  extract  cannot  be 
more  fully  controverted  than  by  a plain  statement  of  facts, 
with  which  I do  not  doubt  you  are  all  familiar.  The  purity 
of  the  water  of  all  rivers  and  harbors,  into  which  organic 
matter  is  deposited,  can  be  maintained  by  keeping  the  water 
in  motion,  and  diluting  it  with  a sufficient  quantity  of  uncon- 
taminated water  to  prevent  its  becoming  foul  and  stagnant.  . 

I will  bring  to  your  notice  some  instances  in  which  this 
principle  of  purifying  water  is  most  clearly  demonstrated. 
Take  any  of  our  large  rivers,  for  example  the  Susquehanna  ; 
with  its  banks  and  those  of  its  tributaries  closely  studded  with 
villages  and  towns  for  a distance  of  400  miles,  and  receiving 
the  drainage  from  a district  containing  a population  of  over  a 
million  and  a half  of  people.  The  waters  of  this  river,  not- 
withstanding the  large  amount  of  sewage  which  flows  into  it, 
are  discharged,  at  its  lowest  stage,  clear  and  pure  into  the 
head  of  the  Chesapeake  Bay  at  Havre-de-Grace.  The  Delaware 
River  also  affords  another  striking  illustration.  It  passes 
through  a densely  populated  country,  having  within  its 
water-shed  the  city  and  harbor  of  Philadelphia,  receives  the 


2 


drainage  of  a district  containing  1,600,000  inhabitants,  and 
delivers  its  waters  into  the  Delaware  Bay  at  New-Castle  free  from 
pollution,  and  the  same  may  he  said,  of  all  other  rivers  under 
similar  circumstances. 

I will  now  call  your  attention  to  the  late  improvements  in  the 
Harbor  of  Chicago , which  was  formerly  in  the  same  condition 
that  our  Harbor  now  is , and  idiichJhas  had  the  same  remedy 
applied  to  it  that  I propose  in  my  plan  to  apply  to  the  Harbor 
of  Baltimore , except  that  all  the  sewage  of  Chicago  flows  imme- 
diately into  the  harbor , while  I propose  to  provide  for  the  dis- 
charge into  the  ten-foot  conduit , there  to  mingle  with  the  current , 
tohatever  sewage  the  city  may  at  anytime  determine  to  throw 
into  the  intercepting  sewers. 

The  improvements  in  the  harbor  of  Chicago,  which  afford 
ample  evidence  of  entire  success  in  this  branch  of  engineering, 
were  made  under  the  direction  of  that  .eminent  Engineer , Mr. 
E.  S.  C heseborough,  formerly  of  this  city.  He  constructed  a 
conduit  from  the  south  branch  of  the  Harbor  into  the  Illinois 
and  Michigan  Canal,  causing  a constant  flow  of  water  from 
the  Lake  through  the  Harbor  into  the  Canal,  carrying  with  it 
all  the  sewage  of  the  city,  which  now  contains  a population 
equal  to  that  of  Baltimore. 

In  his  report  of  1812,  Mr.  C heseborough  says  that  “the 
water  of  Lake  Michigan  enters  the  mouth  of  the  Harbor  and 
flows  up  the  South  Branch  into  the  Canal,  thus  completely 
deodorizing  what  was  so  offensive  and  unbearable  a year 
ago.”  This  water,  containing  the  sewage  of  the  entire  city, 
does  not  perceptibly  contaminate  the  water  of  the  Canal,  and 
leaves  in  it  no  appreciable  deposit.  The  Canal  discharges 
into  Illinois  River  and  Peoria  Lake,  the  waters  of  which  give 
no  material  evidence  of  contamination. 

The  wrater  passing  from  the  Basin  of  the  Harbor  of  Balti- 
more into  the  Patapsco  River  as  proposed,  will,  after  the 
pumps  have  run  48  hours,  be  entirely  deodorized,  and  will 
not  perceptibly  discolor  the  water  of  the  river  ; it  will  also 
make  no  appreciable  deposit,  or  in  other  words  the  improve- 
ment here  will  act  just  as  the  similar  one  is  noiu  acting  in  Chi- 
cago. 

Mr.  Cheseborough  in  his  report  of  1873  states  that  this  im- 
provement still  continues  to  be  satisfactory,  but  warns  the 
city,  that  with  the  increase  of  population  an  increased  supply 
of  water  to  the  Harbor  will  be  required. 

The  errors  in  the  second , third , and  fourth  sections  of  Mr. 
Heuisler’s  report,  I have  already  explained,  except  the  one  in 
which  he  states  that  the  point  of  deposit  cannot  be  “ changed 


3 


to  advantage  if  once  fixed.”  I do  not  suppose,  with,  the  re- 
sult of  the  Chicago  improvement  before  me,  that  it  will  ever 
require  changing — but  if  it  should,  a sectional  cast  iron  pipe 
of  the  size  of  the  main  conduit  could,  with  the  means  now  at 
command,  he  laid  below  the  channel  of  the  river  so  as  to  dis- 
charge at  any  desired  point,  and  at  a less  cost  than  a brick 
conduit  of  similar  size  could  be  constructed  on  the  shore. 

There  is  also  an  other  advantage  in  my  plan,  which  although 
fully  explained  to  the  Committee,  Mr.  Heuisler  appears  to 
have  forgotten,  and  that  is,  that  by  the  simple  movement  of 
reversing  the  engine,  the  machinery  and  all  appliances  will 
work  equally  well,  and  throw  the  pure  water  of  the  Patapsco 
into  the  Basin  instead  of  throwing  the  water  of  the  Basin 
into  the  Patapsco,  thus  giving  to  the  City  at  all  times  the  choice 
between  the  two  plans  of  depletion  and  flushing — In  one  of 
which  one  hundred  and  ninety-two  millions  of  gallons  of 
water  will  be  drawn  daily  from  the  Docks  and  head  of  the 
Basin  and  discharged  into  the  Patapsco  River  near  Fort  Cov- 
ington, creating  a constant  inward  current  of  pure  water 
from  the-  channel  between  the  Lazaretto  and  Fort  McHenry  ; 
in  the  other,  the  same  quantit}^  of  water  will  be  forced  from 
the  Patapsco  river  into  the  head  of  the  Basin,  and  the  action 
of  the  current  reversed  ; in  either  case  the  intercepted  sewage 
is  provided  for , and  the  Docks  and  Jones’  Falls  can  be  de- 
pleted or  flushed  at  will.  The  change  from  one  of  these  sys- 
tems to  the  other,  without  a moment’s  delay,  being  made  by 
merely  moving  the  reverse  bar  of  the  Engine. 

In  the  fifth  section  Mr.  Heuisler  suggests  that  the  system 
of  depletion  will  cause  an  accumulation  of  sediment  near  the 
outfall  of  the  conduit.  It  is  not  possible  that  such  accumulation 
as  he  describes  can  take  place  ; a small  amount  of  sand  may 
deposit,  but  this  will  not  be  the  case  if  the  catch  basins  con- 
nected with  the  Inlets  of  the  intercepting  sewer  are  kept  in 
proper  condition. 

In  the  Sixth  Section,  Mr.  Heuisler  pays  high  tribute  to  the 
capacity  of  the  propeller  pump  which  I propose  to  use,,  in 
supposing  that  it  will  create  such  a current  as  to  “ import  ” 
from  the  mouth  of  the  Falls  into  the  Basin  a portion  of  the 
discharge  from  the  Falls  and  Harford  Run. 

He  says, — “The  constant  working  of  the  propeller  pump 
will  create  a current  in.  the  mouth  of  the  Basin  opposite  Jones’ 
Falls  which  will  import  a large  quantity  of  the  matter  held 
in  suspension  discharged  from  the  Falls  and  Harford  Run  into 
the  Basin,  as  far  the  current  has  velocity  enough  to  keep  it  in 
suspension,  and  when  it  gets  into  the  wide  part  of  the  Basin 


4 


where  the  current  will  be  proportionately  sluggish,  it  will  be 
deposited  and  form  bars  on  either  side  of  the  current,  which 
bars,  in  the  highway  of  commerce,  will  entail  the  presence  of 
dredging  machines,  and  greatly  obstruct  navigation.” 

The  working  of  the  pump  will  create  a current  at  the  point 
of  wrhieh  he  speaks  of  about  120  feet  per  hour — and  in  one 
hour  all  sediment  will  be  likely  defin'd  its  way  to  the  bottom 
and  remain  there,  as  far  as  this  current  is  concerned,  within 
this  space  of  120  feet.  This  confines  the  dredging  machines 
to  their  usual  field  of  labor. 

From  the  tenor  of  the  Seventh  and  Eighth  Sections,  Mr. 
He u isle r has  evidently  greatly  misunderstood  me.  The  idea 
I intended  to  contey  to  the  Committee  in  my  statement  was, 
that  if  the  intercepting  sewer  w^as  connected  with  the  main 
conduit  it  would  be  necessary  to  run  the  pump  constantly, 
although  at  times  the  speed  might  be  greatly  reduced. 

If  the  construction  of  a Brick  Sewer  wTas  anything  of  a nov- 
elty there  might  be  some  reason  for  the  solicitude  expressed 
in  Mr.  Heuisler’s  Ninth  Section,  which  is  as  follows: 

Ninth. — u Mr.  Locke  proposes  a brick  sewer.  The  length  of 
time  necessarily  to  be  consumed  in  the  slow  progress  of  build- 
ing such  a sewer  along  the  main  thoroughfares  of  the  city 
would  make  the  work  a most  serious  inconvenience,  and  one 
which  ought,  if  possible,  to  be  avoided.  Moreover,  the  chance 
for  injury  to  it  from  the  heavy  traffic  on  the  surface,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  peculiar  wet  and  unstable  nature  of  the 
ground  where  it  must  rest,  will  be  very  great.  Sewage  escap- 
ing through  this  cracked  and  dislocated  structure  would  be 
terrible  as  a nursery  of  contagion  and  disease.” 

I propose  to  build  this  sewer  in  the  same  manner  that  I 
have  always  executed  work  entrusted  to  me,  in  a ivorhnanlike 
manner , and  with  as  little  obstruction  to  the  thoroughfares 
through  which  it  passes  as  possible.  The  difficulties  Mr. 
Heuisler  anticipates  are  but  imaginary,  and  I should  have  but 
little  respect  for  the  authorities  of  the  city  if  I supposed  that  they 
would  accept  a “ cracked  and  dislocated  structure  ” from  me, 
and  one  that  would  prove  a “ terrible  nursery  of  contagion 
and  disease.” 

In  his  Tenth  Section,  Mr.  Heuisler  says  : “ Mr.  Locke  lays 

great  stress  upon  the  economy  of  his  pump,  which  seems  to 
have  weight  with  the  majority  of  the  Committee.  The  econ- 
omy he  claims  is  that  his  screw  pump  will  do  ten  times  as 
much  work  for  a given  amount  of  power  (fuel)  as  the  best 
pump  now  in  use.” 

He  is  again  in  error.  I did  not  state  that  the  pump  I de- 


5 


signed  using  would  do  ten  times  as  much  work  for  a given 
amount  of  power  as  the  best  pump  now  in  use.  Such  a state- 
ment would  have  been  preposterous.  What  I did  say  was, 
that  with  my  plan  I would  do  ten  times  as  much  work  with 
the  same  power  as  could  be  done  by  any  of  the  other  plans 
that  were  before  the  Committee,  all  of  which  proposed  raising 
the  water  and  sewage  to  a considerable  elevation. 

Mr.  Heuisler,  who,  it  will  be  remembered,  in  the  Sixth  Sec- 
tion of  his  report,  seems  so  fully  impressed  with  the  efficiency  of 
the  pump  I propose  to  use,  as  to  express  fears  that  it  will  create 
so  great  a current  in  the  Basin  as  to  4 £ import  large  quantities 
of  matter  discharged  by  the  Falls  and  Harford  Kun.”  Now, 
in  his  tenth  section,  after  referring  to  some  drainage  works  re- 
cently constructed  in  Italy  with  centrifugal  pumps,  which  he 
says  discharge  seven  hundred  millions  of  gallons  of  water  in 
twenty-four  hours,  without  giving  the  power  applied,  or  appear- 
ing to  have  any  evidence  of  the  cost  with  which  the  result  is  pro- 
duced, proceeds  to  say  : “I  must  therefore  conclude  that  the 
efficiency  of  the  screw  pumps  has  been  greatly  over-estimated 
by  Mr.  Locke.”  This  may  be  a logical  deduction,  but  I must 
confess  my  inability  to  see  it. 

The  screio  or  propeller  has  been  used  as  a pump  from  most 
remote  antiquity , and  is  at  present  esteenied  the  most  economi- 
cal application  of  power,  either  for  creating  a current  in  water 
or  driving  a vessel  through  the  water,  both  of  which  are,  as 
far  as  Hydro-dynamic  laws  are  concerned,  one  and  the  same 
thing.  ■ 

In  the  mode  of  its  application  to  the  work  proposed  it  has 
been  greatly  simplified,  so  as  to  render  it  most  effective  and 
to  prevent  the  possibility  of  derangement.  This  form  of  ap- 
plication has  been  patented. 

Mr.  Heuisler  further  continues  : “ Passing  now  from  these 

practical  difficulties  to  the  financial  phase  of  his  propositions, 
I must  also  object  in  toto  to  the  manner  in  ivliich  it  is  proposed  to 
commit  the  City  in  the  manner  of  the  construction  of  the  works 
connected  with  Mr.  Locke’s  plan.  * * * * * Why  de- 

part then  from  the  safe  and  settled  custom  of  the  City  in  calling 
for  bids  in  open  market  f It  will  be  an  alarming  precedent, 
and  such  a step  finds  no  warrant  in  the  spirit  of  our  muni- 
cipal laws,  or  in  the  resolution  referring  this  subject  to  the 
Committee.” 

I do  not  conceive  that  there  has  been  the  slightest  departure 
from  u the  safe  and  settled  custom  of  the  City  in  calling  for 
bids  in  open  market,”  in  the  course  that  has  been  pursued  by 
the  Committee,  which  is  fully  described  in  the  first  paragraph 
of  the  majority  report,  which  says : 


6 

“ The  majority  of  the  Joint  Standing  Committee  on  Har- 
bor, to  whom  has  been  referred  the  various  petitions  and  plans 
which  have  from  time  to  time  been'  presented  to  the  Mayor 
and  City  Council  for  the  purification  of  the  Basin,  so  as  to 
render  it  no  longer  a nuisance,  injuriously  affecting  the  com- 
merce of  the  City,  the  health  of  our  fellow-citizens,  and  a 
continued  source  of  well  grounded  apprehension  of  a general 
pestilence,  beg  leave  to  report  that,  in  addition  to  those  before 
received,  they  have  invited  'plans  and  proposals  from  all  availa- 
ble sources , have  had  numerous  and  protracted  meetings  upon 
the  subject,  have  had  the  various  propositions  discussed  before 
them  by  their  respective  authors,  and  have  finally,  and  after 
patient  labor  and  investigation,  decided  upon  a plan  which 
they  confidently  believe  will  realize  in  the.  shortest  time,  and 
with  the  least  possible  expense  for  a work  so  extensive,  the 
permanent  purification  of  the  waters  of  the  Basin/’ 

My  plan,  presented  at  the  invitation  of  the  Committee,  was 
one  of  fifteen  which  they  had  before  them  and  considered  ; 
many  of  which  were  in  minute  detail  with  estimates,  and  a 
portion  with  bids  to  do  the  work.  The  whole  matter  was  fully 
open  to  competition.  The  plans,  proposals  and  bids  were  re- 
ceived and  acted  upon,  as  far  as  I am  capable  of  judging, 
according  to  ‘ ‘ the  safe  and  settled  custom  of  the  City  in  calling 
for  bids  in  open  market.” 

I deem  it  unnecessary  to  go  into  any  review  of  the  Special 
pleading  which  Mr.  Heuisler  has  so  freely  woven  into  the  fabric 
of  his  report,  as  it  is  ivith  facts  and  not  fancies  I propose  to 
deal,  but  will  call  your  attention  to  a statement  he  makes  in 
regard  to  the  plan  presented  to  the  Committee  which  appears 
to  have  received  his  sanction.  In  speaking  of  this  plan,  (the 
one  presented  by  Mr.  Hambleton)  he  says  : 

“In  the  first  place,  his  plan  but  applies  to- Baltimore  the 
principles  on  which  London  and  numerous  other  places  are 
acting  and  depend  for  relief  against  a nuisance  similar  to  our 
Basin.  It  is  notan  experiment  merely , but  a tried  and  approved 
system  of  the  extent  and  efficiency  of  which,  about  other  great 
centres  of  population,  the  most  ample  testimony  can  be  had.” 

I regret  that  he  does  not  attempt  to  show  the  similarity 
between  this  plan  and  that  of  the  drainage  system  of  London 
to  which  he  compares  it,  or  mention  some  other  of  “ the  great 
centres  of  population  which  give  evidence  of  its  success”  &c. 
As  it  is  described  in  the  Journal  of  the  Second  Branch  of  the 
City  Council  for  1873  and  1874,  which  is  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Heuisler,  it  contemplates  relieving  the  Harbor  of  all  sewage 
which  now  flows  into  it  from  the  north,  down  as  far  as  the 


1 


Lazaretto  ; it  is  also  to  take  from  the  Docks  and  Basin  10,- 
000,000  of  gallons  of  water  in  24  hours,  and  convey  the  com- 
bined water  and  sewage,  by  pumping,  through  a thirty-inch 
iron  pipe  for  a distance  of  four  miles  from  the  east  end  of  the 
City  Dock  to  one  mile  below  the  Lazaretto.  If  to  the  10,- 
000,000  of  gallons  of  water  from  the  Basin,  we  add  5,000,000 
of  gallons  tor  the  sewage  of  this  District,  Mr.  Hambleton 
will  have  to  discharge  15,000,000  of  gallons  through  this 
30-inch  pipe  in  24  hours. 

By  the  formulas  of  Hawkesley  & De  Buat,  (Haskoll’s  Engi- 
neering Field-work,  page  92,)  and  I believe  there  is  no  higher 
authority,  Mr.  Hambleton  will  have  to  raise  the  sewage  to  a 
height  of  80  feet  above  tide  at  his  pump-well,  in  which  the  water 
will  have  to  be  kept  10  feet  below  tide  to  give  sufficient  fall  to 
the  intercepting  sewer  ; it  will  require  an  engine  of  over  300 
horse  power  to  lift  this  15,000,000  of  gallons  90  feet  high  in  24 
hours.  (The  power  required  by  my  plan  will  be  less  than  250 
horse.)  With  the  pressure  upon  the  pipe  adequate  to  this  re- 
sult, he  will  be  unable  to  open  any  inlets  for  the  reception  of 
the  sewage  of  the  Eastern  Section  of  the  City,  because’ the 
sewage  and  Basin  water  will  be  at  once  forced  from  the  pipe 
out  of  these  inlets  m\o  the  streets  and  but  a small  portion 
find  its  way  to  the  proposed  outfall. 

This,  Mr.  Hambleton  designates  as  his  temporary  plan  (the 
permanet  one  he  leaves  most  undecided  and  obscure,  and  says 
it  will  be  influenced  by  the  future  supply  of  water,  &c).  This 
plan  is  compared  by  Mr..  Heuisler  to  that  of  the  drainage  system 
of  London , and  he  also  states  that  numerous  other  places  are 
acting  upon  it,  that  it  is  a “ tried  and  approved  system,5'  &c. 
1 challenge  Mr.  Heuisler  to  ■ name  a single  city  in  which  any 
such  system  has  been,  or  is  now , in  use. 

His  comparing  it  to  the  magnificent  works  of  the  Metro- 
politan Board  of  London,  which  are  justly  looked  upon  as 
the  great  engineering  triumph  of  the  age,  can  be  simply  char- 
acterized as  absurd.  Mr.  Heuisler,  in  making  this  and  many 
other  statements  in  his  report,  has  evidently  been  imposed 
upon  by  some  one  who  professed  to  have  information  upon  a 
subject  upon  which  they  were,  and  are,  wholly  ignorant. 

The  London  works  have  eight  intercepting  sewers  which 
flow  into  the  outfall  sewers  on  both  sides  of  the  Thames.  A 
portion  of  the  sewage  of  the  lower  parts  of  the  city  is  raised 
into  the  outfall  sewers,  which  discharge  into  huge  reservoirs 
on  either  bank  of  the  river  about  twelve  miles  below  London 
Bridge.  The  gates  from  these  reservoirs  are  opened  into  the 
Biver  at  the  commencement  of  ebb-tibe,  and  the  sewage  flows 


8 


out  with  it  to  sea  diluted  with  the  water  which  is  accumulated 
in  the  River  by  a tide  of  twenty  feet.  No  foul  water  what- 
ever is  drawn  through  the  sewers  from  the  Thames.  I shall 
not  further  comment  upon  Mr.  Heuisler’s  comparison. 

Mr.  Hambleton  in  his  report  to  the  Hon.  Joshua  Vansant, 
Dr.  James  A.  Stewart  and  Messrs.  Henry  James,  George  S. 
Brown  and  George  U.  Porter,  which  report  met  their  approval, 
is  found  in  their  communication  to  the  City  Council  dated 
January  4th,  1874,  (see  page  38  Second  Branch  Report.)  He 
then  says,  “ Chicago  is  affected  with  a river  nuisance  similar 
in  character  to  ours,  and  has  at  great  expense  succeeded  in 
producing  a flow  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  gallons 
a day  of  pure  lake  water  through  the  main  and  South  Branch 
of  the  Chicago  River  with  the  following  results  ” : (He  has 

quoted  from  Mr.  Cheseborough’s  report  of  1873.)  u The 
effect  of  deepening  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  canal,  on  the 
Main  River  and  South  Branch,  continues  to  be  satisfactory , 
but  observation  as  well  as  reflection  shows  that  the  purifying 
power  of  the  canal  is  limited,  and  it  will  not  do  to  suppose 
that  any  amount  of  filth  for  a city  of  the  size  to  which  Chi- 
cago promises  to  grow,  may  be  discharged  into  the  river  and 
its  branches  for  all  time  to  come  without  producing  injuric  ■ 
results.” 

Here  Mr.  Hambleton,  after  stating  and  quoting  Mr.  Chese- 
borough  to  prove  that  the  Harbor  of  Chicago  has  been  puri- 
fied by  the  introduction  into  it  of  a current  from  the  Lake  of 
250,000,000  of  gallons  of  water  per  day,  and  that  the  result 
is  still  satisfactory , also  adds  the  fears  entertained  by  Mr. 
Cheseborough,  that  with  the  extended  growth  of  the  City,  the 
canal  will  not  be  able  to  furnish  sufficient  drainage. 

He  winds  up  his  report  by  recommending  the  plan  which 
Mr.  Heuisler  advocates  of  attempting  to  purify  the  Harbor  of 
Baltimore,  which  City  has  the  same  numerical  population  as 
Chicago,  by  drawing  from  it  10,000,000  of  gallons  of  water 
per  day,  and  pumping  it  four  miles  through  a 30-inch  pipe. 

I will  here  reiterate  that  the  improvement  to  the  Harbor  of 
Chicago,  which  is  identical  with  what  I have  proposed  for  that 
of  Baltimore,  except  that  I design  to  intercept  the  sewage 
and  to  use  steam  power  to  produce  the  current  here,  which  is 
there  produced  by  gravitation,  is  a success,  and  as  Mr.  Chese- 
borough, after  a trial  of  three  years,  states  continues  to  be 
satisfactory.  It  was  no  experiment  when  introduced  there, 
and  has  certainly  had  in  this  case,  which  has  been  brought 
so  frequently  before  the  public  for  the  last  three  years,  “ the 
crucial  test  of  experience.” 


/ 


9 

Baltimore  has  great  advantages  over  Chicago,  because  in 
addition  to  an  unlimited  amount  of  water  at  our  disposal 
we  have  an  ample  channel  for  its  discharge,  by  which  a cur- 
rent ©f  500,000,000  of  gallons  per  day  can  he  passed  through 
the  Harbor  in  either  direction  by  the  same  conduit  I propose, 
requiring  only  an  increase  in  the  capacity  of  the  machinery. 

I will  further  state  that  I do  not  propose  to  leave  Jones’ 
Falls,  Harford  Run,  the  City  Dock,  or  any  other  portion  of 
the  city  without  means  of  relief , as  Mr.  Heuisler  intimates, 
and  as  has  been  so  widely  asserted  in  condemnation  of  this 
Plan.  A full  and  comprehensive  system  of  drainage  for  the 
I entire  city  from  Canton  to  the  Spring  Gardens  is  contemplated 
; and  provided  for  ; to  he  executed  at  any  time  its  authorities 
may  deem  it  proper  to  do  so.  I shall  borrow,  as  most  appro- 
priate here,  the  language  used  by  Mr.  Heuisler  in  recommend- 
ing Mr.  Hambleton’s  plan.  He  says  : ee  His  plan  also  contem- 
plates, hut  does  not  necessarily  involve  a general  system  of 
| sewage  for  the  city  east  and  west  of  the  Falls  alike,  a most 
material  consideration,  inasmuch  as  the  idea  of  a comprehensive 
drainage  system  must  he  ever  present  to  the  minds  of  a city 
government  charged  as  ours  is  with  legislating  for  the  health, 
development  and  comfort  of  a great  community.”  This  lan- 
guage, it  would  seem,  is  more  properly  applicable  to  my  Plan, 
which  has  capacity  to  receive  and  discharge  the  entire  sewage 
of  the  city,  than  it  is  to  one  which  contemplates  the  astounding 
and  unprecedented  engineering  feat  of  forcing  the  sewage  of  a 
city  containing  300,000  inhabitants  for  four  miles  through  a 
'30-inch  pipe,  and  in  addition  to  this  providing  for  the  discharge 
through  this  pipe,  and  at  the  same  time,  of  10,000,000  of 
gallons  of  water,  in  each  24  hours,  from  its  polluted  harbor. 

I hand  accompanying  a Plat,  showing  the  lines  upon  which 
intercepting  sewers  can  be  readily  constructed  and  led  into  the 
main  conduit,  from  which  their  contents  can  be  discharged  as 
far  down  the  Patapsco  River  as  may  be  desired. 

I must  apologize  to  you  for  the  length  to  which  I have  ex- 
tended this  paper,  but  have  felt  compelled  to  do  so  not  only 
on  account  of  the  attack  made  by  Mr.  Heuisler,  but  on  account 
ot  the  many  erroneous  statements  which  have  been  so  freely 
circulated  by  both  informed  and  uninformed  parties  for  the 
purpose  of  shaking  your  confidence  and  that  of  the  public  in 
the  propriety  and  principles  of  the  plan  which  I presented  to 
you,  and  which  has  been  honored  by  your  approval. 

I have  endeavored,  as  far  as  I have  capacity,  to  state  clearly 
,what  I have  had  to  say,  and  hope  that  I have  succeeded  in 
doing  so,  being  unwilling  that  you  should,  on  my  account. 


10 


fall  into  any  “error”  which,  to  use  Mr.  Heuisler’s  closing 
remarks^  ‘ c added  to  delay , will  leave  us  ivithout  excuse  before 
the  bar  of  public  opinion , where  interests  as  vital  as  these  are 
ultimately  reviewed.  7 7 

Very  Respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

MILO  W.  LOCKE. 


Baltimore,  March  27th,  1875. 


10 


fall  into  any  u error ” which,  to  use  Mr.  Heuisler’s  closing 
remarks,  “ added  to  delay , will  leave  us  icithout  excuse  before 
the  bar  of  public  opinion , where  interests  as  vital  as  these  are 
ultimately  reviewed.  ’ ’ 

Very  Respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

MILO  W.  LOCKE. 


Baltimore,  March  27th,  1875. 


nniliriHl  II II II  lM  IU'J 

eDOOODQDD$0] 

DDyoaoDlfflfi 

Mp(]r 

nnnnnwMnn  M 


mmu 

BdlM 


^ □□□mm 

igpD  □□□□□□ 

mssm 


[□□□□□□□□limadto 
!□□  □□  □□  Ill  |tpp 
IDDCDOOpEi 

BDDDDDP®nilte 


UJJJJJJJ" 


pnoam 

/□□□□□□\ 

imcDtpi 

BDDDDDl 

;□□□□!□□[ 


^mmfflcGPdoa- 


e □□□□□ 


pyusaONDMOD^ 

rmanaamm^ 

JJ  JJJJJJ  jj  ' v / 


fflODDOODQ 

win 

Stffila 


DOPCDDOULJ 

pqpQQDona 


BC—J, 

fimmtN 


FOR  PURIFYING 

'HE  HARBOR  OF  BALTIMl 

AM  DISPOSING  OF  ITS  SEWAGE. 
ED  LINES  show  the  Work  now  propose 
LUE  LINES  show  the  contemplated  exte 
main  conduit  and  intercepting  sewers.  |i 


mwm 


fall  into  any  ue 
remarks,  “ adde 
the  bar  of  public 
ultimately  revieu 

Ve 


Baltimore,  Marc 


' HOT 


r r 

a v haw 


<0  0k  $WP 

- 


r a 

f-  fU 


1 i 


la 


